All Things LGBTQ+ (4 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[SystemShock]

I asked a simple question. Why the defensiveness?

It's not defensiveness... maybe crankiness ... and you are not the person I should have directed my crankiness at, so I apologize for that.

But it does get tiresome, the disregard for biological females, in the name of embracing everything transgender. And really, even though for many here I am a transphobe arguing against transgenders, my intention is to argue in favor of biological females, or "cisgender women". Side note, I don't like that label, "cisgender".

 

[CoolBrees]

@SystemShock -

I think the only way your argument stands is if you believe that there are men out there, a significant number I might add, that are becoming female for the purpose of gaining an advantage and winning women’s sports events.

You are a real smart guy so I know you don’t believe that.

@Farb -

Your whole “argument” is based on the premise that being gay/ trans / non-binary etc is a choice not who the person is. I have a hint for you: It isn’t a choice.

Nobody moved because their kid came home and asked when they were going to be a girl. Stop.

 

[MT15]

It's not defensiveness... maybe crankiness ... and you are not the person I should have directed my crankiness at, so I apologize for that.

But it does get tiresome, the disregard for biological females, in the name of embracing everything transgender. And really, even though for many here I am a transphobe arguing against transgenders, my intention is to argue in favor of biological females, or "cisgender women". Side note, I don't like that label, "cisgender".

I don’t think this is disregard for women, at all. It’s trying to be inclusive of every person.

Is there a potential for unfairness, well, yes, just like in the rest of life. Someone can be slated to take over at a certain position on a team and a new kid can move into town and be better. Or the coach could favor a different player. Or an athlete could catch a flu or something on the day of a big race. Life just isn’t always fair, and things don’t always work out in our favor. Sports should teach us that. As long as regulations are followed, there’s nothing that can be done.

But if your idea of fairness has you discriminating against an entire group of people, then maybe the idea should be re-examined. The actual number of trans women who are dominating in sports is unknown, but my perception is that it isn’t a huge amount. The article Rob posted does a pretty good job of putting things into perspective.

Its just not part of my makeup to deny participation to an entire group of people because of a problem that can be dealt with by the sports’ governing bodies and without clear evidence that it’s a huge problem.

 

[V Chip]

I could swear I read that Thomas was ranked 244th in NCAA men's swimming. But for the sake of the argument, I'll withdraw the alleged ranking - I'll try to figure out where I got that from - and I'll even call Thomas a very good swimmer, even though within the context of NCAA competition, Thomas is nothing extraordinary, which is what mediocre means, "nothing extraordinary".

me·di·o·cre
adjective
1. of only moderate quality; not very good.

Ranking 6th or even 48th in the nation as a freshman NCAA swimmer is not "moderate quality -- not very good." There were 35 wide receivers taken last draft; would you describe them as "mediocre" in regards to the NCAA (not to mention the ones signed as undrafted free agents). But at least you can admit in part that the information you were using in your assessment was flat out wrong.

So let's use the numbers you posted in the 500 free, since that is the championship Thomas won. We have a jump from 48th in the men's division to champion in the women's division, plus records broken along the way (and I don't believe Thomas holds any men's records).

Which records did Lia Thomas break again?

Yep, cisgender men are better swimmers than cisgender women. The NCAA record for women in 500 free is 4:24.06 posted by Katie Ledecky in 2017. That time would not have even placed Ledecky in the top 138 (maximum number of entries I could find on usaswimming.org) for 2022 alone. The top time for men in 2022 was 4:09.06, far outpacing the best time ever for cisgender women. The 48th best men's time in 2022 alone would have shattered Ledecky's record by 8 seconds. Lia Thomas didn't come close to Ledecky's record after the hormone therapy -- Lia Thomas won this year with a time of 4:33.24, more than 8 seconds behind the record and far below her times the last time she competed in the men's team before taking any hormones (4:18.72).

That is quite the jump, and the reason it happened, is because the unfair advantage Thomas has over the biologicals Thomas swims against.

This is partially true -- there isn't an exact science yet to what kind of restrictions should be placed on trans athletes in state/national competitions. Obviously, a trans athlete shouldn't be allowed to compete without taking *any* hormone therapy, but should they be banned completely? I mean, the NCAA has allowed trans athletes to compete for over 10 years and yet this is the first big brouhaha over it. I'll bet all the people arguing against it cannot name one other NCAA trans athlete without doing a Google search (to be honest, I wouldn't be able to either). A revision to the policy can and should be made as science becomes better at determining at what level would the competition be fair.

The numbers in the psych-sheet you posted, the fastest time in the 500 men's free in 2022 mens' div1 is 4:09.06. Thomas' best time was 4:18.72. All things being equal (i.e., assume none of the swimmers listed would do any better than their current posted times), can you make the claim that Thomas would've shaved almost 10 seconds off that time to become NCAA div 1 men's champion in 2022?

Possibly. Many swimmers in the NCAA have shaved off more than 10 seconds from one year to the next. In the post where I showed Thomas' times for freshman and sophomore years, the number 8 swimmer in 2017 (Ricardo Vargas Jacobo) jumped to the number one in 2018, shaving off almost 12 seconds in the 1000 freestyle. Swimmers have posted times in the 500 free in the same season that have cut 10 seconds off their times.

The unfair physical advantage Thomas has swimming against biological females is obvious. The NCAA rules, as they are, are unfair to biological females.

Perhaps. Taking an already exceptional male athlete (no matter how many times you claim it, Lia Thomas while not elite was definitely exceptional in swimming to finish top 7 two years in a row in an NCAA event in FR and SO years) and letting them compete with exceptional cisgender female athletes is something that needs to be looked into more. But you and I and 99.9% of the people out there didn't argue this point 3-5 years ago because that scenario had not occurred and the right-wing outrage machine hadn't put its entire weight behind the issue yet.

But, biological females are yesterday's news. Ben Watson is right.

 

[V Chip]

Side note, I don't like that label, "cisgender".

I don't either. It sounds wonky. But it is the correct term to use, so I use it.

 

[coldseat]

It's not defensiveness... maybe crankiness ... and you are not the person I should have directed my crankiness at, so I apologize for that.

But it does get tiresome, the disregard for biological females, in the name of embracing everything transgender. And really, even though for many here I am a transphobe arguing against transgenders, my intention is to argue in favor of biological females, or "cisgender women". Side note, I don't like that label, "cisgender".

I guess I don't see it as having to be an either/or thing. I don't believe the vast majority of those of us arguing in favor of trans athletes inclusion in the athletic contest of the gender they identify as are arguing against fair competition for biological females/cisgender women. More so, we're arguing that there's a way to include trans women in female athletics with some rules/guard rails to insure fair competition. I don't believe that organizations that have long advocated for and governed female athletics and pushed for Title IX reforms are now willing to disregard female empowerment and fair competition in service to a "woke ideology". But that they recognize that trans women are valid and are working to find a way that they can be included in female sports competition. What we're going through now is an initial period where adjustments to whatever formula that allow trans players to compete should be expected as the kinks get ironed out and we learn more about the effects of hormone treatment on the body.

Which gets to the reason why I asked the questions I did. If you believe that trans women are just mentally ill men dressing up as women, like @Farb does, then it makes since to believe that inclusion of trans women in female sports is an attack on "real women". Just like if you believe that homosexuality is intrinsically evil then you're likely to see LGBTQ inclusion or discussions at schools as inherently dangerous to children's welfare. And your likely to see diversity and inclusion in general as some devious, evil plan being propagated on everybody. It all fits.

You seem to be in the middle some where. Maybe what I'd classify as the old liberal, anti-woke group. What I like to call the Bill Marah club, although I have no clue what his thoughts are on transgender female athletes, lol. But I don't really know. Personally, for me, the whole "woke" hysteria has lost all meaning and doesn't move the needle for me at all. I mean, when DJT calls Mo Brooks "woke", you know the word is meaningless.

 

[Farb]

@SystemShock -

I think the only way your argument stands is if you believe that there are men out there, a significant number I might add, that are becoming female for the purpose of gaining an advantage and winning women’s sports events.

You are a real smart guy so I know you don’t believe that.

@Farb -

Your whole “argument” is based on the premise that being gay/ trans / non-binary etc is a choice not who the person is. I have a hint for you: It isn’t a choice.

Nobody moved because their kid came home and asked when they were going to be a girl. Stop.

Let us say for the sake of argument that it is a choice. What age do you think is a good age to take physical action?

And, yes, someone did move. Remember how we had the discussion about moving out of progressive cities?

 

[Farb]

I still want to know why his participation is more important than the 5th place that didn't make the cut or even the 2nd place finisher?

 

[coldseat]

I still want to know why his participation is more important than the 5th place that didn't make the cut or even the 2nd place finisher?

Maybe ask yourself why it's less important.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I will be curious to see if this holds true on all threads or just this one.

Depends on how bored I am and if you actually put effort into conversing like an adult.

 

[CoolBrees]

@Farb -

Did you just ask me to assume someone just decides to be who they are in order to weigh in on when they are old enough to learn about themselves?

I don’t know, how old do you think you should be to learn about who you are?

Where I live it would be absolutely unworkable to not say gay to kindergarten kids. There are multiple families that are same sex, or have trans members etc. in every class. The Principal is a lesbian. And no she hasn’t told me or anyone. It is just pretty obvious since she is married to a woman who is at the school as much as any amazing principal’s spouse is.

So what should she have to say when a student asks why her spouse is a woman?

 

[Farb]

@Farb -

Did you just ask me to assume someone just decides to be who they are in order to weigh in on when they are old enough to learn about themselves?

I don’t know, how old do you think you should be to learn about who you are?

Where I live it would be absolutely unworkable to not say gay to kindergarten kids. There are multiple families that are same sex, or have trans members etc. in every class. The Principal is a lesbian. And no she hasn’t told me or anyone. It is just pretty obvious since she is married to a woman who is at the school as much as any amazing principal’s spouse is.

So what should she have to say when a student asks why her spouse is a woman?

Who said you can't say the word gay to a kindergartner? Not me, not the bill you are referencing. The only place I see that is the in the lefts narrative and lies.

 

[Farb]

Maybe ask yourself why it's less important.

Good point. Simple answer, right and wrong. Why is a pedophile's urge less important than a kid's right to not be diddled?

Because up until 5 years ago, any normal, logical person could look at a grown man competing against women as just silly and know it is not natural. There have been many jokes about it but now we are suppose to suspend basic human reality? Why is the real question.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Good point. Simple answer, right and wrong. Why is a pedophile's urge less important than a kid's right to not be diddled?

Because up until 5 years ago, any normal, logical person could look at a grown man competing against women as just silly and know it is not natural. There have been many jokes about it but now we are suppose to suspend basic human reality? Why is the real question.

Why? Well, we're trying to allow trans people to live as full a life as possible. That doesn't mean we won't run into difficulties along the way but we'll work through those.

 

[coldseat]

Paxton up to his usual homophobia. That guy is one hateful SOB.

Students in the Austin Independent School District can collect Pride flags and pronoun buttons this week as they celebrate LGBTQ students and work toward creating an inclusive environment. It’s the eighth year the district has held Pride Week, which includes lessons on diversity and acceptance.

But on Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sent a letter to the school district saying the celebrations constituted “sex education.” Without consent from parents, the district’s Pride Week is “breaking state law,” he said.
“The Texas Legislature has made it clear that when it comes to sex education, parents—not school districts—are in charge,” the letter states. Paxton noted parents could file complaints against the school district.

About 45 minutes after Paxton’s office tweeted out the letter, the school district’s superintendent, Stephanie Elizalde, tweeted back: “I want all our LGBTQIA+ students to know that we are proud of them and that we will protect them against political attacks.”.

This part must make you super proud @Farb.

Administrators at Doss Elementary School in Austin had their personal information posted online and also received death threats this week after the school’s Pride Week agenda was shared on Twitter, KUT reported. The students were forced to celebrate indoors as police were posted outside, Stanford said.
“The kids had no idea what was going on, but the teachers were afraid to go to work,” Stanford added. “So the last thing we’re worried about is what Ken Paxton has to say.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/03/24/ken-paxton-austin-isd-pride/

 

[Optimus Prime]

MTG at it again
================

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she feels "threatened" because transgender women – who she calls "biological men" – are replacing her.

The assertion that transgender women are replacing people assigned female at birth is false, but follows Greene's anti-trans stance.

The Georgia Republican and far-right conspiracy theorist made her comments in a retweet of disparaging tweets about Adm. Rachel Levine, the assistant secretary for health for the US Department of Health and Human Services. Levine, the highest-ranking openly transgender official in the nation, was chosen in March as one of USA TODAY's "Women of the Year."

"As a woman, I feel threatened because biological men are aggressively replacing women," Greene tweeted. "All of my life, as an American women, I've been equal in every place to men, but not anymore..........

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MT15]

That makes zero sense. I mean, she normally makes no sense, but this is even more stupid than usual.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That makes zero sense. I mean, she normally makes no sense, but this is even more stupid than usual.